The system of Tasmanian government, with its weak parliament, its ineffectual representative democracy, its timid caucus-hugging party careerists and woodchip corporate minions, is on glorious display in all its panoply of farce.

It is always a chillingly interesting spectacle to watch a whole political system systematically wreck its public standing by surrendering its moral obligations, discrediting itself by shifting its responsibilities to grasping private profiteers. But it’s not an unusual scenario where loosely-held principle meets an obstacle, colloquially described as “complex”. The greater the insurmountable complexity of it all – in terms of politicians seeking to preserve themselves – the greater the cost to the general public. The still unfolding reverberations of the GFC, had (and still has) its masters of the universe living in imperial splendour while their victims in their millions around the world have been ruined. That is the inevitable perversity of unjust laws and regulations. The perpetrators usually avoid the consequences while leaving human misery, economic carnage and social and environmental chaos in their wake.

Part of this unedifying process is to hear and to read how politicians and their support crews of group-think acolytes go through the mental gymnastics of supporting unjust laws which they should be opposing. But there’s an even more macabre sense of occasion when politicians seek to justify their support of the implementation of unjust laws in full – or even beyond full.

“Residual legal rights” is a classic case in point. There can be no doubt whatsoever that this conscience- absolving euphemism for compensation, which resulted in Gunns collecting a cool $46 million for outlaying nothing at all, was completely unjust. One disturbing aspect of this one horse race triple-by-tripled-by-quadrupled winning trifecta is Simon simple. It is no longer difficult to accept that such an unjust outcome is possible in the Tasmanian political jurisdiction. It’s just another day at the races for Caligula’s horse consul, all other runners excluded, paid from the public purse.

That’s what happens with nasty precedents. Unjust laws are used to perpetuate their existence, to be the foundation for a whole edifice of injustice. It sets a standard easily followed, widened, elaborated, customised and then enforced. Witness the path to the PMAA, the emails from 2005 and 2006, the events of 2007, the roundtable-statement of principles-IGA process, the expiry of permits, and so on. And that’s just the tip of the fingernail above the mire. The rest is hidden, buried, shredded, compounded, residued.

One insidious aspect of such a process is that the Machiavellian ideal of the ends justifying the means becomes standard operating procedure within the political system by all players in the decision-making quagmire. In such a morally bankrupt environment it is no longer a bit rich (how about residual rich?), as in over-ripe to rottenness, to adopt an apologetic posture in support of an unjust law or regulation if it serves a particular political purpose.

The examples of this in relation to “residual legal rights” (henceforth replaced by Kim Booth’s knee-trembler “compensation”) are multiplying like mushrooms in confidential darkness.

My personal favourite is that the compensation money won’t be enough to help Gunns build its pulp mill, so should be supported on that profoundly morally-free principle alone. So what is it sufficient to do? Pay contractors to transform “substantially commenced” into “substantially completed”? Pay for forthcoming legal expenses as well? Using Gunns’ own remarkably reliable information, maybe outlay $25 million for six weeks work on the site – let’s say a million bucks for 25 workers, or half a million for 50, or $250,000 for 100, for six weeks of earth moving. That really does make sense in the context of Gunns sacking hundreds of workers over the last few years.

Clever.

Then there are the costs of cameras to photo protesters, vehicles, stray animals on the site, the training of people to use cameras, to catalogue and file the results. It all adds up. Just as long as there’s heaps left over to keep the masters of Gunns universe in the manner to which they’re accustomed, if funds are short to cover their bonuses or their six and seven-figure salaries.

Another real winner is the argument that it is not state money but federal money and, you know, bits of pots that wouldn’t have been used for health and education anyway. But that’s the real point isn’t it? Of course it wouldn’t have been used for those “essential services”, but it should have been. A better question would be: Why aren’t these funds being used for public “essential services”? Sure, I know. Naivety was a cardinal error of those who criticised the funding priorities of the ancien regime.

To read the delusional self-serving justifications based on “pragmatic” considerations about the uselessness of fighting Gunns – years of litigation being the main one – is not so much a revelation as a sick and sorry sight. Not to outdo itself, the Labor-Green government then turned its own definition of “pragmatism” (compromised compensation springs to mind) into free-fall surrender. The “probity auditor” (anyone for a nuanced probe audition?) quite clearly got it wrong and had to stand corrected by Gunns – double it or stuff it, which will stuff the IGA too. So there, do what you’re told. And don’t forget what IGA stands for – In Gunns’ Arms. Just a friendly reminder, so remember that you ain’t too heavy to drop. By the way, guys and gals, you better hurry up because Bob Brown is getting a bit twitchy. He wants the fed solicitor-general to check the probity of the probe, which could complicate the residue at your end.

Soonest said, soonest done, with much self-congratulation by the Greens for having suggested it all, and avoiding a legal stouch with Gunns. Heaven forbid! How would they pay their legal bills? And how fortuitous to get it done before Bob Brown’s belated queasiness spread further afield. What a relief.

Have these people given any consideration to the logical consequences of what they are doing? Have they given any consideration to the additional precedents they are creating? The injustices they are perpetuating? How many other pieces of legislation passed by the Tasmanian parliament, or arrangements between powerful corporate interests and government which the public has no knowledge of, replicate the “residual legal rights” scenario that is now resulting in the massive socialisation of Gunns’ costs?

Don’t you worry about that. Just focus on the football. Go Pies! Bury the Hawks in Gunns-Labor-Green public funds, wrapped in $100 bills, hundreds and hundreds and thousands and thousands and millions and millions of residue, of residual funds from a cupboard bare, of rights instead of rites…

Thanks Peter, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that our politicians view their role as being a conduit to enable money to pass from the taxpayer to Gunns.
I can see why they wanted to purchase back the log allocation but the way they’ve gone about is nothing short of total incompetence.
Gunns reportedly accepted $6 million less for Triabunna, simply to get the cash sooner. Anyone buying something from Gunns at the moment must know it’s a buyers market, yet our worthy representatives simply doubled their offer when the first was rejected?
Perhaps they should have got Jan Cameron to handle the negotiations!

Posted by Steve on 19/09/11 at 10:49 AM

Yes, “pragmatic” was a worrying word from the day it became the word to end the war. It suggested being reasonable, but with little reasoning given except to toe the line. It ultimately confirmed the political intention not to question too much and to populate the idea in the public psyche to accept without question. Sensible to those who seek to be the sheep herders perhaps, but spank me with a splintered ruler if one tries to make out any logical sense in supping with the devil to justify little more than, as Bryan Green and indeed the Greens now call ‘hope’ (and lots of prayers apparently) that all will be kosher at the setting of the sun.

Apparently Gunns could/can create as many government/legislative/permit/contractual conditions (basically loopholes) as they like; they can hold the state to ransom; get the government to stand on its head if need be to come to the party, but at the end of the day the government again gives sway to Gunns with nothing but ‘hope’ it all works out.

But now that Gunns have come out of hiding it looks like the Examiner’s high hopes for Gunns, (re a JVP) once again consulted the wrong oracle and not ‘could’ but ‘did’ speculate incorrectly … Just as well they are not running a betting agency.

Gunns on the other hand, with the twist of a pen, have turned their high hopes of the so called Pulp Mill Project Vehicle into ‘certainty’.

As per Gunns ASX market update - “The announcement by the Tasmanian State Government on 14 September 2011 provides the necessary certainty for the company to continue to progress with the pulp mill project.” ….

… Followed by cosy comfort words of plantations to try and make them look like they are a good corporate citizen if not a socially acceptable company. High hopes indeed. Here’s cheers to the Greens!! As they said in their forest policy …. significantly higher volumes of pulpwood, which has been reverberated through ET – “…whilst the larger volume commodity end of the timber industry is going to be largely based around plantations”. “Going to be…”?? How? In what vehicle specifically?

Although the good news is …. there’s quite possibly no hope for Gunns to wear any future responsibility. As per Gunns ASX market update - “3. Mutual release between the company and Forestry Tasmania from certain current and future claims arising out of those agreements.”

… release of certain future claims …? Would be good to see just how the agreement wording goes for that bit of future hush.

Yes indeed “pragmatism” in remodelling the forest industry in Tassie seems to have caused the death of common sense in our government and many a politician.

Posted by Claire Gilmour on 19/09/11 at 01:03 PM

Royal Commission!

Posted by Russell Langfield on 19/09/11 at 01:54 PM

I have lodged a complaint with the Tasmanian Ombudsman regarding the EPA Director’s abrogation of his duties to uphold the States Planning Laws. It has so far been rejected on what I believe to be rather spurious grounds in that the Ombudsman considers that I am not an “aggrieved person” as required under the ACT. See the Directors reply below:

Re: Environment Protection Authority

I refer to your complaint in relation to the above named, which was received in this Office on 9 September 2011, and advise that it will not be accepted for investigation.

This is because Section 14(4) of the Ombudsman Act 1978 provides that the Ombudsman shall not except under certain specified circumstances that do not apply here entertain a complaint unless it is made by a person personally aggrieved. In general terms, to be personally aggrieved a complainant needs to demonstrate something more than the interest which any member of the public might have in upholding the law; there needs to be some greater connection between the complainant and the action complained of.

Your concerns lie with the manner in which the Director of the EPA has performed his functions of office in relation to the development of the Bell Bay pulp mill. I appreciate that you believe the Director to have breached his duty to uphold planning laws, but this does not make you a person personally aggrieved for the purposes of the Act.

In those circumstances, I propose to close your file. I will, however, keep it open for a further 14 days in order to allow time for you to make submissions in writing as to your personal interest in the subject matter of the complaint should you wish to do so. If I have not heard from you in that time, the file will be closed.

Yours Sincerely,

Richard Connock
DIRECTOR

I have replied to the Director as below but if the performance of other Government officials on matters concerning Gunns are any guide, I will not be holding my breath:
16 September 2011

Ombudsman Tasmania
Director
Mr Richard Connock

Dear Sir,
Regarding my complaint (Quote: O1109-083), I wish to state the reasons that I am personally aggrieved as required under the Act .

My residence is approximately 6 kilometres downwind of Gunns proposed Pulp Mill site at Longreach. This is well within the area that experts, such as former RPDC member Mr Warwick Raverty, assure us will suffer the effects of noxious odors such as rotten egg gas, common to all Kraft Chlorine Bleach Pulp Mills.

This area will also be in direct line of other dangerous airborne pollutants such as PM10 particles to be emitted by the proposed Pulp Mill.

As a frequent user of the Northern beaches, I expect to suffer some effect from the 64,000 tonnes of pollutant, including dioxins, that the proposed Pulp Mill is to pump daily into Bass Strait, some of which will inevitably wash up on these beaches.

I believe that Mr Schaaps actions, in failing to uphold the States Planning Laws, has allowed construction of this Pulp Mill to proceed (thereby directly affecting me) while it’s Permit has expired under the PMAA, the legality of which is currently under consideration by Mr Schaap.

I believe that I am a party who is very much aggrieved by Mr Schaaps actions, Irrespective of whether he eventually decides that the Permit has expired or not.

As per my original complaint:
” With the above permit expiry due on 30-8-2011 Mr Schaap failed to take prior advice on the definition of “Substantial commencement” as specified in the Act and after the expiry deadline, has allowed Gunns to commence construction activities while a decision is eventually made. I believe that these construction activities may well be illegal due to what any reasonable man might view as a complete lack of “Substantial commencement” of a $2.3 million project and consider that it is an abrogation of the Director’s duties to uphold the planning laws of this State.”

Posted by Tamar Devil on 19/09/11 at 02:54 PM

Russell Langfield, as the DPP points out, correcting both you and I, its a Commission of Inquiry, although Royl Commission sure sounds more decisive.

Gunns cannot give up their pulpmill dream or they go broke, closing what many politicians, businesses and workers see as one hope, regardless of other opinions.

The need for gold at the end of the rainbow keeps many dreaming preventing us from going forward on a more substantial basis.

Posted by phill Parsons on 20/09/11 at 08:01 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.